This Post Will Not Contain Any References To Coke Or Porn…

…because I am a classy lady.

So, in case you haven’t heard, Virginia Thomas, wife of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, is indeed hopping on the tea party train. She has started a group called  Liberty Central Inc. Liberty Central is reportedly a nonprofit lobbying group created for the purpose of organizing activism around a set of conservative “core principals.” You can read more about this story here at the LA Times.

Now, politics aside (if such a thing is possible), I don’t have any particular dislike for Justice Thomas. And certainly a SCOTUS justice is FAR FAR more qualified to opine on just about anything than am I.  That said, I do think it incredibly disingenuous to constantly deride the more progressive side of the court for engaging in judicial activism, when the originafederalists are doing exactly the same thing.

ALL judges engage in judicial activism; if they aren’t, then they are not doing their job. As I see it, every decent judge has or should have some sort of articulable judicial philosophy. And every judge, through experience, gains insight on the law not reflected in the letter of the law. Simply put – if a judge is actually judging, there is no way that he or she will not necessarily engage in what is referred to as judicial activism.

Of all the Justices, I always wish that Thomas would get out and about more. He is so, well, quiet. And when he does speak, he is articulate and drily humorous. I know conservatives generally expect all liberals, progressives, and non-fundies to be filled with foamy hate at the mere thought of anyone with whom they disagree. While I am not filled with joy by the concept of “originalist” or “federalist” constitutional interpretation, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that I must also dislike a person who follows such an approach. Unlike a pundit or other such vile creature who makes a living off of being an obnoxious persona, I think arbiters of thought can and do exist as people distinct from their philosophies.

Take, for example, the awesome relationship between RBG and Scalia. Shit, if they can get together and share an elephant, then there should be hope for us all. Sometimes agreeable people simply disagree – certainly when it comes to academic matters that do not directly affect either party on a personal level.

But I think it is the latter part of that statement – that the argument cannot focus on things that personally impact the speakers – that is the key to understanding why there is so much animosity coming both from and towards teabaggers. If they were simply out to discuss Constitutional matters, as they often claim to be doing, then I would think reasoned discourse would be possible. However, when the Constitutional matters are either a veneer or a side item to other more personal matters, dialogue is not really possible.  I have no desire to engage in a Constitutional debate with someone waiving a sign declaring Obama is a Muslin [sic].  Conversely, they are not going to believe anything I say because I am a liberal and therefore have a liberal agenda.

Likewise, the healthcare debate has become too internalized to be rationally discussed. Everyone comes to that table with their mind made up. I, for one, am tired of the talking points. I am tired of hearing people going on and on about 10th Amendment this, or socialism that when most of the time, they have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Quit acting smart and just SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.

I think we should have a single-payer system. I believe the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact such a system. More importantly, I think that in a capitalist society, the Government has a duty to act to preserve and protect the interests of the Citizenry from Corporations. Especially where, as here, it is undeniably clear that our quasi-free market is allowing Corporations to profit to the gross injury of the majority of the citizenry.

If you think otherwise, fine. But don’t give me some bullshit argument that you heard from Glenn Beck. Tell me why YOU think it is wrong for our government to restrict the healthcare industry in order to protect the citizens. Tell me why YOU don’t want our taxes going to the welfare of the general public health – specifically why we draw the line at healthcare.  Tell me how YOU think things are going to get any better if we don’t do something to fix them – or tell me why you think they are just fine.

In the meantime, I am going to go make some tea and leave you to gaze upon some freshly baked bread…

French Bread

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. Dr. Monkey said,

    March 15, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    I’m ready to join the Fresh Baked French Bread party!

  2. March 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Mmm… bread.

    I dislike Thomas and Scalia because any time they write a dissent it’s completely douchey. Yes, it’s a dissent, it’s supposed to be disagreeable, but they always kick it up a notch.

    I just can’t imagine that the people breathing fire about health care reform have even sat down and thought it through. Other than watching Glenn Beck cry. Which is hawt, but otherwise irrelevant.

  3. Vic said,

    March 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Excuse me, but you said there would be no porn, then you go and show that sexy bread!

  4. southern female lawyer said,

    March 15, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Vic – you can ALWAYS be confident that this blog will show oodles of food pR0n!

  5. Dusty said,

    March 15, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    when the originafederalists are doing exactly the same thing. ding ding ding..we have a winner!

    You cover so much ground here it would take me a blog post worth to respond..so let me just say..I agree with you on all of it.

  6. Sevesteen said,

    March 15, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Health care is far too expensive because we don’t have actual capitalism–we have a complicated mess of regulations and interconnections, the exact sort of complexity that corporations can handle far better than people. Doctor’s offices spend almost as much (or possibly more) time on paperwork than doctoring. You get BMW-level care if you can afford it. If you can’t, you get bits and pieces of a BMW, with no Hyundai option available.

    …and the proposals I’ve seen do nothing to significantly change this, except guarantee even more profit to the incumbent corporations.

  7. lacithedog said,

    March 16, 2010 at 6:58 am

    So, it’s Thomas’s wife: I ws curious as to which wife it would have been.

    Personally, we need to come up with a computer programme using artificial intelligence that will make high court judicial decisions. It would help if Alan Turing were still alive for this, but it would look for relevance to precedent and use rules to come up with logical decisions.

    How do you manage to have the french bread come out perfectly?

  8. March 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    […] Female Lawyer talks Clarence Thomas, judicial activism and a single-payer system. She does not mince words nor does she stutter. I think we should have a single-payer system. I […]

  9. March 19, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Clarence Thomas is not more qualified than you to comment on anything.

  10. funny site said,

    September 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Whassup?.
    I love your blogpost. This was very nice to read.
    I wonder how I didn’t find this blog before.

    I will try to spread the word. Many of my friends will like this.

    Thank you and keep it up!
    🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: